Stock pricing and licensing stuff

[waple]

I wish I could edit the title. I should have called this Stock vs Custom pricing and licensing stuff.

Someone just showed me a link to an online stock photo pricing calculator: Stock Photo Price Calculator

I looked over the calculator and read this disclaimer and am unsure about some things. The title is “Stock Photo License” so does this only consider the price of selling the one-time or limited use of a photo that you already have in your possession? Is that the definition of "stock", something that isn't taken for a specific purpose? As in if a company wants to use, in their advertising, a photo that you took a year ago, you’d sell them the rights to use it this one time for this fee? Here's an example from the site:

Type of Use:: Corporate
Specific Use:: Annual Reports
Press Run:: 10,000 to 50,000
Size:: Cover (Front)
Low Price:: $850.00
Average Price:: $1,275.00
High Price:: $1,700.00
Survey = 645

So you’d charge around $1300 for them to use that photo for that one use, right?

Let’s say you’re hired to take an original photo for that same company, say a portrait of their CEO that is to be used for the same annual report. I’m assuming you’d still charge the same $1300 (or would it be something completely different since this may not be a "stock" photo), but would you also charge a sitting fee and other fees on top of the licensing fee? Or does one typically do the session, etc ad hoc if the shoot is for a specific purpose.

In that same scenario, if they hired you to take that specific photo, is there any way they would actually own the copyright since they hired you to do a specific job for them? Someone I met recently said that on the invoice you have to say somewhere "Not A Work For Hire" because if you don't they own all rights. Is this true at all?

Thanks much and I hope you can see the (somewhat hidden) logic behind all the questions. I highlighted several words because they all deal with somewhat different, but specific points.

[Unkl Buck]

Those are some good questions, waple. From what I understand, you still own the copyright even if they seek you out to photograph a specific job. If you work for the company, then yeah, they own the rights. But if you don't, it's not any different than "contract labor" in my mind.

[jbimages]

Copyright law varies in different countries. Perhaps you could indicate the country you are in?

[Steve Buchanan]

Ok,

Let's start with copyright. The law (USA) states that the creator is always the copyright holder unless there have been written arrangements made to the contrary. Work for Hire is a specific legal definition that designates the employer at the creator and not the actual person doing the work. Example - you work for Microsoft as an employee and write a software application. You are not the copyright holder, Microsoft is, as you are an employee and employee works are usually automatically work for hire. Another example would be if you perform contract photography for a company that designates the job as "Work for Hire" in their contract. For that reason it behooves you to use your own contract that specifically designates the work as 'Not work for hire'

As far as usage fees and creative fees go, you've pretty much got it right. You'll find that there are as many pricing methods as there are photographers and that no two photogs will do it alike. Likewise you'll find clients that fully understand and appreciate the licensing model, and others that don't. For my 2cents licensing models make sense since it rewards the artist for more creative and valuable work, that's good for the industry as a whole and in the end makes us all work harder.

Steve